burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I'd go about as far as saying large format and the largest of medium format formats (6x9 and 6x17) are POTENTIALLY better than digital capture in some situations.

People use 35mm film for the nostalgic experience. I get that... There is something organic about a Nikon FTn or F3 or F100 loaded with Tri-X or Portra 160, or one of the middle European 'art' films. I don't need it, but it works for some folks. (And I own an FTn and an F3.)

Portra is a "skin tone" film. If you're photographing people on film, that's a good first choice. Ektar has a higher contrast, more saturated color look. It is great for balloon rallies, birthday parties, fireworks, landscapes like the Badlands of South Dakota at sunset, or Zabriskie Point in Death Valley at dawn...

But I'll take digital gear over film for most work. It's simply a more direct, more practical approach. It gives me the control I like, and the flexibility I need.

I have spent considerable time photographing old slides and negatives, then digitizing them. The results are more satisfying than my analog options were when I made the original exposures.

glennk

👍

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

You tell Paul to, Be nice, while asking, who in their right mind thinks film is better. There are many of us who simply enjoy using film cameras and, still in their right mind, DO think film gives a different look to photographs. Now the term, better, is subjective isn’t it? You may not think it is better but then you may not be in your right mind. See how that works when you cast insults.

Why do you care? Is there some underlying reason you feel the need to control what others do; some reason you can’t simply do what you want while not commenting negatively on what others do?

Dennis

delder Loc: Maryland

It seems that B/W Film photography may still be reasonably possible.
Color might be a more difficult proposition due to complexity of the process and lack of available resources.

My memories of home BW developing is for small runs the chemicals always expired...
In a College setting, chemicals got contaminated...

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Rule one of darkroom work is, CONTROL THE VARIABLES. It's the same for digital...

If you can control temperature of water in a large plastic tub with a $70 to $90 Sous Vide (look it up), if you can keep chemicals in clean, oxygen-free, brown glass bottles, and if you can batch your film so the chemicals get used below their rate of exhaustion within a couple of weeks, you'll get the best results.

I didn't bother with darkroom work in college, because I could not control the darkroom. I could at home. I always mixed fresh chemicals when I got home from school, and processed my film right away, in one- to four-roll batches.

At work, as an AV producer, I had access to an E6 "sink line" darkroom with five gallon tanks, nitrogen burst agitation, a water tempering machine to keep the sink at 38°C/100.4°F, ±0.5°F, and all the right reels and a 20-roll reel holder. Our photo lab had state-of-the art C-41 and RA-4 processes. But I did my own black-and-white at home, even for work.

C-41 chemistry is nasty stuff, meaning it has lots of health hazards. I would rather find a good professional color lab and let them process my film. I'll do the "scanning" with my digital camera, Lightroom Classic, and Negative Lab Pro.

delder Loc: Maryland

burkphoto:

I agree. The College [A HCBU] lacked resources to support truly professional work. The training I received in the ART of photography was, however, invaluable!

I have enough prints & negatives to scan to keep me busy for a long while without resorting to shooting MORE film right now.

Thank you so much for reminding me of the Darkroom fundamentals!

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Absolutely correct in controlling the variables of the chemistry (time, temperature, how old?) to get consistent darkroom results. I’m set up to do color, but with the end of Kodachrome and Cibachrome, I don’t bother with color anymore unless it’s E6 (slides). I do still really enjoy both the process and the look of B&W silver halide prints however. Fixed and rinsed correctly, they will look the same a hundred years from now. Not something you can always guarantee with digital media (can you read it?) and dye based ink jet prints. Pigment based ink on archival quality paper? Maybe.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Pigment prints I made in on an Epson 9600 in 2003 have not faded at all. They match my (calibrated, profiled) monitor view of the same images. However, chromogenic silver halide prints of the same images have faded unevenly and significantly in just 19 years.

Kodak papers fade pretty quickly. I have many Kodak and Fujifilm color negatives I made in the 1970s and '80s that scan and print digitally just fine. But the prints made back then are awful!

Flowers in West Texas, June, 1978 (Original is a Fujicolor negative copied with digital camera)

(Download)

jackebenton Loc: Marietta, GA

Thank you, Bob. The above comment is, IMHO, the most rational yet in this thread.

Jack

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I was referring to the longevity of B&W silver halide prints only developed in B&W chemistry. I have 55 year old prints I exposed, developed and printed (not chromogenic) that look like the day they were done and 100 year old prints that are perfect as well. The only color prints from that era that are worth a damn are Cibachrome (which is why I don’t print color in my darkroom anymore). As far as the longevity of pigment ink on archival paper, it looks good so far, but we’ll know for sure in 100 years.

piano44

I have one digital point-and-shoot, but I mostly make View-Master reels. I have both the American and European View-Master cameras, which have different ways of handling the film. When I go to a wedding, birthday party, etc, I shoot some View-Masters and then give the "star" the reels, with a $10 viewer and maybe a dedicated View-Master case. Of course, this requires shooting reversal (slide) film, processed with E-6 chemistry. I've had good luck sending the film to Dwayne's Photo in Kansas. I can't do that with digital. There is a company, image3d.com, where you can send them digital stereo files (left & right images) and they will make a custom reel for you (any number of copies). But that is much more expensive, and impractical for me.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Cave paints have lasted 30,000 years or more, as estimated via carbon dating. Those are various organic color pigments and carbon black, same as used in Epson Ultrachrome inks and their later descendants. The limiting factors of pigment inkjet longevity are most likely the paper substrate and the storage conditions (temperature, humidity, pollution, and UV through light and IR exposure).

In 19 years, my framed Epson prints and identical prints stored in the dark look the same. Color and B&W seem to have aged the same. I have lots of old silver halide B&W photos that are okay, and others (commercially made!) that were improperly fixed and washed and are looking rough. I have Polycontrast Rapid RC prints from the 1970s that are starting to come apart (delaminate). Prints on Ilford and Kodak fiber base papers I used in the late 1960s to early 1970s look fine.

rlv567 Loc: Baguio City, Philippines

Just one question - how old were you when you made the now 100-year old prints??? You're certainly doing remarkably well for your age.

Loren - in Beautiful Baguio City

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Visit the Wilhelm Imaging Research website and review his reports. http://www.wilhelm-research.com

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

I am not taking a position pro nor con about film vs digital, but I have looked at several film sites on youtube and the presenters seem to enjoy what they are doing. If you can afford it, enjoy doing it and find it interesting why not do it? The question is why do people contact UHH seeking permission or blessing to do what they enjoy doing? Or conversely write in to take potshots at people for doing something they find out of date and pointless?